Is webrev generation still relevant?

[Philip Race]

+1 to keep webrevs.

I  look at them regularly for all the reasons given so far and more,
for example I prefer to download the patch webrev generates rather than
use other mechanisms to apply a fix to test in my local repo.
When there are many files in a patch github just breaks down in many cases.
webrev also gives me more ways to view the incremental and full patches.
It is also clear, less busy and straightforward and I actually trust 
them more.
If it were not for the fact comments have to be given in the PR on 
github I would
probably only use webrevs and ignore github.

-phil.

On 1/18/24 1:04 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> At the onset of Project Skara, one goal was to keep backwards 
> compatibility with developers' workflows. For this, a Skara bot was 
> created which generates webrevs, as closely aligned to the original 
> ksh webrev script as possible.
>
> Now I believe all developers are well into the Skara/GitHub way of 
> doing things, and I have not heard someone refer to webrevs in a long 
> time. So my first question is:
>
> * Is it still relevant to continue let the Skara bots generate webrevs?
>
> I personally have only used webrevs on a few occasions the last years, 
> and those have all been when the GitHub diff viewer was inadequate. 
> For instance, the webrev bot uses a more aggressive method of letting 
> git match files that have been simultaneously moved and edited, and 
> the Frames view align code side-by-side which is sometimes much more 
> helpful than the line-by-line view in GitHub. So, my second question is:
>
> * Should we keep the idea of a bot that generates diff pages, but 
> instead of mimicking the old webrev script, tailor it to cover up for 
> those use cases where GitHub falls short?
>
> I'm not suggesting we should immediately turn of the webrev bot, so if 
> you still like and use it, there is no cause for panic. I'm just 
> trying to get a sense of how people feel about the future for webrevs.
>
> /Magnus
>